All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in finding Defendant B guilty of the part of the charges of fraud among the charges of this case against Defendant B, and of violation of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies in 2008. In so doing, the court below did not err by violating logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found Defendant B’s occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B, and acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the prosecution was instituted after the statute of limitations has expired, as to the Defendants’ violation of the Act on Budget and Management of Subsidies in 2007 among the facts charged, is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding facts beyond the bounds of logical

On the other hand, even though the prosecutor submitted a written appeal to the effect that he/she is dissatisfied with the part of the judgment below's conviction and the part of the 2008 subsidy other than the national subsidy in violation of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies, the prosecutor did not state the grounds for appeal as to that part in the appellate brief. Therefore, this part of the appeal

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.